Be kind folks, this is something near and dear to many of our hearts. We all want to see dnd get to a better place, and we each have classes that we feel can still use some improvement especially with some of the changes made in the most recent release. This difficult, because no two people can agree on the best ways to fix the flaws we perceive in the current models. Be it damage, utility, defense, or flexibility.
My personal feelings are each one of those categories needs a small bump. Partially because the larger the change the less likely I feel wizards will implement it. Ki economy seems to be the main root from which most of the perceived faults originate. Many dislike having to give up damage to live, and how many things are very dependent on bonus action economy. These are fairly complicated systems to compare. Very rarely is someone going to us Flurry every turn to keep up with higher damage classes, especially when you lose out on other uses of your bonus action. Even getting a little extra ki (whether a flat bonus, or a recovery mechanic outside of a short rest) would be a bandaid. Especially with the playtest moving away from short rest dependency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Monk should just get proficiency in Martial weapons
No. Not even worth discussing, as it has already been covered: "Warrior of Weapons" (kensei) should get Martial Weapons (and in my proposal, they do). General Monks should not. You don't agree? Don't use my proposal. It wont be changing to suit you.
To support STR-based unarmed fighters just add: Feat: Brawler
Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting
So, at first level, a Fighter can do better unarmed strikes damage than a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate. And, at 4th level, anyone can do as much damage with unarmed strikes as a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate.
Wow... this isn't your personal soapbox, this is a forum where we have conversations. If you don't want to listen to anyone else then just write up your proposal as HB and publish it on DMsGuild and give it to all your players. Particularly since you don't seem to understand how the game works at all?? 2d6+DEX*2 >>> 1d8+STR.....
I feel this edition fixes some needs but is going backwards in many other things. The strictness to sub/class features feels like returning to that rigid 2nd edition in 2024. At the end I am going to apply more homebrew than rules, but then how can I know if I maintain the balance? It's not easy. Why a Bladesinger cannot get a Fighting Style? It is so game breaking? Meanwhile you can still make a Paladin with a dip in Warlock to make everything only with its Charisma, just requiring 13 Str.
Also we are returning to only the base Fighting Styles (the thrown weapons one was really interesting), removed many interesting feats (like Fey Touched). Was not enough simply to removing or limiting the game breaking ones? I want to think that at the end we will have the full set of revised feats and other things.
I am fully on the side of max flexibility but banning the unbalanced things from the game. So even in 5E I removed many of the feat requirements:
- Why a Fighter cannot get some spell ability? It is not free, and doesn't have to be better than any other feat, is merely another way. So removed the Metamagic Adept requirement, removed the "Sorcery Points only for metamagic" and adding to it the Font of Magic feature to be able to convert to spell slots. Well, if someone wants to specialize more in spells, why not? If a Fighter wants to get a feat like Magic Initiate, could cast more times converting SP into spell slots. Though about creating a variation providing more SP without Metamagics, but not sure how many SP (maybe 3).
- In the other hand, being able to get so easily Devil's Sight? I restricted that to Warlock, as a way to get extra Invocation paying a feat.
- Directly removed any requirement to Fighting Styles.
Then you start from your sub/class, and mold your character with feats in the way. While not breaking the game is fine for me, not sure why to impose limitations to players so they can only chose A, B or C for their X class. At the end all the characters of the same class are the same thing. As you can be so happy in the back line with your spell specialization, but when you are hit by that Lightning Bolt ending your adventure then you ask yourself why the hell didn't get the Tough feat. I think there is no clear better than other, most are merely different options, then allow them. If then we detect something game breaking, ban it.
I base on other games specially in one which we enjoyed very very much, that worked this way (with Talents and Flaws), so you could have a Ranger (half-caster) much more specialized in spells or in combat, starting from the same class. It worked so well for all the players, the party and the game itself that don't want to use a so strict and imposed method.
I feel this edition fixes some needs but is going backwards in many other things. The strictness to sub/class features feels like returning to that rigid 2nd edition in 2024. At the end I am going to apply more homebrew than rules, but then how can I know if I maintain the balance? It's not easy. Why a Bladesinger cannot get a Fighting Style? It is so game breaking? Meanwhile you can still make a Paladin with a dip in Warlock to make everything only with its Charisma, just requiring 13 Str.
Also we are returning to only the base Fighting Styles (the thrown weapons one was really interesting), removed many interesting feats (like Fey Touched). Was not enough simply to removing or limiting the game breaking ones? I want to think that at the end we will have the full set of revised feats and other things.
I am fully on the side of max flexibility but banning the unbalanced things from the game. So even in 5E I removed many of the feat requirements:
- Why a Fighter cannot get some spell ability? It is not free, and doesn't have to be better than any other feat, is merely another way. So removed the Metamagic Adept requirement, removed the "Sorcery Points only for metamagic" and adding to it the Font of Magic feature to be able to convert to spell slots. Well, if someone wants to specialize more in spells, why not? If a Fighter wants to get a feat like Magic Initiate, could cast more times converting SP into spell slots. Though about creating a variation providing more SP without Metamagics, but not sure how many SP (maybe 3).
- In the other hand, being able to get so easily Devil's Sight? I restricted that to Warlock, as a way to get extra Invocation paying a feat.
- Directly removed any requirement to Fighting Styles.
Then you start from your sub/class, and mold your character with feats in the way. While not breaking the game is fine for me, not sure why to impose limitations to players so they can only chose A, B or C for their X class. At the end all the characters of the same class are the same thing. As you can be so happy in the back line with your spell specialization, but when you are hit by that Lightning Bolt ending your adventure then you ask yourself why the hell didn't get the Tough feat. I think there is no clear better than other, most are merely different options, then allow them. If then we detect something game breaking, ban it.
I base on other games specially in one which we enjoyed very very much, that worked this way (with Talents and Flaws), so you could have a Ranger (half-caster) much more specialized in spells or in combat, starting from the same class. It worked so well for all the players, the party and the game itself that don't want to use a so strict and imposed method.
In the end we will have a revised full set of feats. Just not in the PHB. Otherwise, if they revised and released everything currently out there, in the 2024 PHB, what would they publish in addon books in the future? This is a revision of the PHB, DMG, MM, after all. Not a revision of the entire game. Some stuff that wasn't in the 2014 PHB is being added, like a few spells, but the vast majority of the content is revisions of only what the 2014 PHB had.
I feel this edition fixes some needs but is going backwards in many other things. The strictness to sub/class features feels like returning to that rigid 2nd edition in 2024. At the end I am going to apply more homebrew than rules, but then how can I know if I maintain the balance? It's not easy. Why a Bladesinger cannot get a Fighting Style? It is so game breaking? Meanwhile you can still make a Paladin with a dip in Warlock to make everything only with its Charisma, just requiring 13 Str.
Also we are returning to only the base Fighting Styles (the thrown weapons one was really interesting), removed many interesting feats (like Fey Touched). Was not enough simply to removing or limiting the game breaking ones? I want to think that at the end we will have the full set of revised feats and other things.
I am fully on the side of max flexibility but banning the unbalanced things from the game. So even in 5E I removed many of the feat requirements:
- Why a Fighter cannot get some spell ability? It is not free, and doesn't have to be better than any other feat, is merely another way. So removed the Metamagic Adept requirement, removed the "Sorcery Points only for metamagic" and adding to it the Font of Magic feature to be able to convert to spell slots. Well, if someone wants to specialize more in spells, why not? If a Fighter wants to get a feat like Magic Initiate, could cast more times converting SP into spell slots. Though about creating a variation providing more SP without Metamagics, but not sure how many SP (maybe 3).
- In the other hand, being able to get so easily Devil's Sight? I restricted that to Warlock, as a way to get extra Invocation paying a feat.
- Directly removed any requirement to Fighting Styles.
Then you start from your sub/class, and mold your character with feats in the way. While not breaking the game is fine for me, not sure why to impose limitations to players so they can only chose A, B or C for their X class. At the end all the characters of the same class are the same thing. As you can be so happy in the back line with your spell specialization, but when you are hit by that Lightning Bolt ending your adventure then you ask yourself why the hell didn't get the Tough feat. I think there is no clear better than other, most are merely different options, then allow them. If then we detect something game breaking, ban it.
I base on other games specially in one which we enjoyed very very much, that worked this way (with Talents and Flaws), so you could have a Ranger (half-caster) much more specialized in spells or in combat, starting from the same class. It worked so well for all the players, the party and the game itself that don't want to use a so strict and imposed method.
In the end we will have a revised full set of feats. Just not in the PHB. Otherwise, if they revised and released everything currently out there, in the 2024 PHB, what would they publish in addon books in the future? This is a revision of the PHB, DMG, MM, after all. Not a revision of the entire game. Some stuff that wasn't in the 2014 PHB is being added, like a few spells, but the vast majority of the content is revisions of only what the 2014 PHB had.
As an addendum, the playtests have abandoned the more bold changes from earlier drafts. It's clear WotC doesn't intend to completely abandon the likes of Xanathar's, Tasha's, and more. Which means those subclasses, feats, and other rules supplements aren't going anywhere. There's a chance they'll be reprinted with a not insignificant amount of errata, and I'm slightly concerned they're not looking at the entirety of those books.
I'm peeved the fourth monk subclass is now "Warrior of Mercy". They strip out a subclass feature from Way of the Astral Self (Deflect Energy) for this playtest and don't even intend to address it if it sticks?
The big question is how whatever they publish will interact with their VTT. If they only support the newer books, and if they don't allow for significant homebrew, it'll feel more stifling than freeing.
It's feeling more and more like 2024 D&D will just be 2014 D&D, but with errata to make everything worse (except Wizards, Rogues, and maybe Sorcerers).
Is that really going to justify DMs spending hundreds to buy new books?
If WotC were serious about making a D&D subscription service they'd just build a site where you can subscribe for say $15 a month, with free access to all D&D material, and also with the digital equivalent of Adventurer's League games where you can just join up with a gaming group with a WotC employed DM hosting. Find a campaign you like, bring your character, and play.
Monk should just get proficiency in Martial weapons
No. Not even worth discussing, as it has already been covered: "Warrior of Weapons" (kensei) should get Martial Weapons (and in my proposal, they do). General Monks should not. You don't agree? Don't use my proposal. It wont be changing to suit you.
To support STR-based unarmed fighters just add: Feat: Brawler
Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting
So, at first level, a Fighter can do better unarmed strikes damage than a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate. And, at 4th level, anyone can do as much damage with unarmed strikes as a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate.
Wow... this isn't your personal soapbox
Nor is it yours, and when your criticisms start with and repeatedly assert falsehoods, they're not worth listening to.
Stating something is false doesn't make it false. PROVE my statements are false. I provided plenty of proof they are true.
Monk should just get proficiency in Martial weapons
No. Not even worth discussing, as it has already been covered: "Warrior of Weapons" (kensei) should get Martial Weapons (and in my proposal, they do). General Monks should not. You don't agree? Don't use my proposal. It wont be changing to suit you.
To support STR-based unarmed fighters just add: Feat: Brawler
Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting
So, at first level, a Fighter can do better unarmed strikes damage than a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate. And, at 4th level, anyone can do as much damage with unarmed strikes as a Monk. No. Non-Starter. Not even worthy of debate.
Wow... this isn't your personal soapbox
Nor is it yours, and when your criticisms start with and repeatedly assert falsehoods, they're not worth listening to.
Stating something is false doesn't make it false. PROVE my statements are false.
I did, in the parts you cut out of your quote of me.
I provided plenty of proof they are true.
You provided zero proof that that I was trying to rip apart a class. You provided zero proof that my feats are inconsistent with "what 5e is about" (and I provided significant proof that they are exactly consistent with 5e based upon other 5e Feats). You provided zero proof that Monks should have Martial Weapons as part of the base class (as opposed to them being part of the subclass that IS about Monks with further weapon training). Further it has already been well argued and no one owes you re-hashing an already thoroughly argued topic just because you don't accept their reasons. You provided zero proof that your alternative feats are somehow better, while I provided fundamental principles why they were flawed (that they should not let non-monks outshine monks). And I am not under any obligation to debate that principle.
You provided _zero_ proof, just unsupported assertions that started with a completely false projection (ripping apart classes) and a completely bogus principle (this "is not what 5e is about").
It's feeling more and more like 2024 D&D will just be 2014 D&D, but with errata to make everything worse (except Wizards, Rogues, and maybe Sorcerers).
Is that really going to justify DMs spending hundreds to buy new books?
If WotC were serious about making a D&D subscription service they'd just build a site where you can subscribe for say $15 a month, with free access to all D&D material, and also with the digital equivalent of Adventurer's League games where you can just join up with a gaming group with a WotC employed DM hosting. Find a campaign you like, bring your character, and play.
The problem, no doubt, that they have realized is that paying DMs would make the subscription very expensive, and/or open the door to bad-DMs tarnishing their brand (imagine if those guys who made the racist version of D&D signed up to be DMs...). Basically they would have three options:
1) Independent Contractor DMs - aka Uber for D&D, people can sign up to be a DM. Some low-payed, overworked WotC staffer checks spends 10 minutes checking they aren't a horrible person to approve them. WotC supplies DMs with discounted subscriptions to VTT & books and DMs offer pay-to-play games and WotC takes a cut. This allows subscriptions to be low, but requires decent uptake to be sustainably profitable. It's also easy for competitors to emerge and offer the same service
2) Part-time employees - WotC hires DMs to do shift work offering games with full access to VTT & digital materials to support their subscription service. Subscriptions are expensive as they have to cover salaries for these DMs, and the HR resources required to hire on the appropriate number of DMs to meet demands. However, it would be hard for competitors to match this kind of service.
3) Artificial Intelligence - people are already running basic games using chatGPT for most of the DMing, and AI is massively cheaper than humans. AI also hugely benefits from economies of scale enabling them to hold a monoply on such a service if they can be the first one to make it work.
If WotC were serious about making a D&D subscription service they'd just build a site where you can subscribe for say $15 a month, with free access to all D&D material, and also with the digital equivalent of Adventurer's League games where you can just join up with a gaming group with a WotC employed DM hosting. Find a campaign you like, bring your character, and play.
That's not a $15/mo service. Might be viable at $150/mo.
If WotC were serious about making a D&D subscription service they'd just build a site where you can subscribe for say $15 a month,
with free access to all D&D material,
That's not a realistic expectation, IMO ($15/mo to get access to all D&D material). If anything, your baseline has to start with the existing D&DB content access/prices. There are bundles if you want "all in one", or you can buy piecemeal. Any subscription you think they should have has to realistically provide them with the same return.
and also with the digital equivalent of Adventurer's League games where you can just join up with a gaming group with a WotC employed DM hosting. Find a campaign you like, bring your character, and play.
I mean, you kind of get that (minus the above part about content) through other places for $5-10/mo, without the service providing you a DM. If you want the service to provide you with a DM, guess what you need to do? Pay them enough to cover them paying the DM. $15/mo for unlimited paid DM sessions is not a viable business model.
A more likely model would be to bundle access to this "online Adventure League and VTT expansion of D&DB" into the existing Player and DM subscriptions (maybe increasing them by a few dollars), and then per-game fees for those games that are run by a paid DM.
You want to play in a VTT offered by (and integrated with) D&DB, finding/bringing your own DM? That could/should be part of the base player or DM subscriptions, yeah.
You want to play in that without having to bring/find your own DM? That game is going to cost you some amount of premium so that D&DB can pay to have those DMs on staff. If you're not willing to pay that premium for a paid DM to be on the WOTC/D&DB payroll, why would they offer you a paid DM?
Is someone compiling a list of all the suggested fixes for the Monk? I know I have my preferences. If no one else wants to compile a list, I'll try making one requiring suggestions be made by more than 1 person (to filter out my harengon brain ideas).
I have been compiling a list from various threads into the most common suggestions. Feel free to use any of these.
1)Ki as a resource pool still needs refining. It's still not enough at tier 1 play and barely enough at tier 2. Short rests vary from table to table and so a monks' power level can be wildly different. Monk power level needs to be the same from table to table so the designers can get consistent feedback.
Some ideas are:
-give the monk enough ki for a full adventuring day that resets on a long rest.
-Add wisdom modifier to starting ki pool.
-give a duration of 1 minute or longer to flurry of blows, patient defense and step of the wind
-heightened metabolism at level 2.
Until ki points are refined to an appropriate and consistent level monks are going to have problems.
2) Allow monks access to fighting style feats.
3) better scaling damage from 11th to 20th. An extra unarmed strike at 11th and 17th level as part of the attack action or flurry of blows.
4) 1d10 hit die OR change "deflect missiles" to "deflect attack" and apply its damage reduction and redirection to melee as well.
5) add weapon mastery options to unarmed strikes.
6) capstone: +4 to dex and +4 to wisdom would be great. (modeled after barbarian).
7) Add half proficiency bonus to unarmored AC.
8) the monk save dc for the new grapple and shove rules to be based on dexterity, not strength.
9) stunning strike - the creature still gets the dazed condition even if it makes its save.
10) Change the term "discipline points" back to Ki points. If that is not possible then try "vitality points" or "focus points."
11) dextrous attack - let the monk add dexterity bonus to any weapon the monk is proficient in that lacks the heavy or two handed property. Not just simple weapons only.
12) free bonus action disengage and dash
13) Just make the monk awesome and people will play it. Even if you have to make some large changes. Backwards compatibility is less important than making a great monk.
The solution to fixing monk has to be simple enough to leave it compatible with 5e monk subclasses not in the PHB. If a sub class is getting a revision it’s fine, because you are suppose to use the most current version. One thing I noticed today for Ranger is I felt that all rangers should get the new Hunters lore as part of the base class. That can’t happen because hunters lore is actually a renamed ability from the monster slayer. In 5eR you will be able to still play the old monster slayer subclass using the new 5eR base class. The same must be true of the Monk. I don’t believe Way of Mercy will be in the new 5eR PHB. The Way of Astral Self will require a revision if the 5eR base monk keeps deflect energy. I believe this is a way to test the new Base class compatibility with the Tasha’s monk and we will receive a play test for Warrior of Mind or something similar.
Johnkzin some of your suggestions are just too complex. Also your Vitality discipline was OP compared to the other 2. Con for health, def, attacks, and save DC.
I dislike the you can use weapon mastery with unarmed strikes idea that a couple people keep sound boarding. Weapon Mastery is a pretty boring system and now that everyone can use it the Fighter needs something else. I’ve made suggestion on how I would fix it in previous post, but I don’t see a reason to repeat in the same thread. If I come up with a new way to do it I’ll post again, but to keep repeating the same ideas over and over isn’t helping find something that many people would agree is a good enough fix.
I also doubt monks will ever be a single stat class for their defense. I wouldn’t mind their AC being based on Monk level, but I believe WOTC wouldn’t change it. It’s a staple of 5e now, even if it’s not necessarily a good staple.
Looking at Fighter, and Barbarian, I ask what makes a Monk a Warrior? Fighting styles don’t make you a warrior. Barbarian doesn’t have it. I would say Martial Weapons, but monks get Martial Arts as a “fair” replacement. Monks and Barbarians get a form of unarmored defense, but Barbarians still get some armor options. Monks probably should be allowed light armor proficiency and for it to work with Martial Arts and their Unarmored Movement (lightly armored movement), be given a better version of Unarmored Defense (12+Dex+Wis), or be given a better method of hit and run as part of martial arts (When you attack a creature on your turn they have disadvantage on attacks of opportunity against you until the end of this turn). I’ve always been confused by the monk hit die. Fighter gets d10, Barbarian gets d12, why is Monk d8. Was monk meant to be a glass cannon. At level 1 the 5eR 2d6+6 could mean that, but that falls off quickly. Monks should get a d10, a bigger increase in damage or Patient Defense should become no action.
This has been something I noticed. Monks have Caster proficiency and average non-martial health. So their features should be making up for that. Martial Arts ability seems to be made to make up for lack of martial weapons and Unarmed Defense makes up for the lack of armor proficiency, that + mastery with SIMPLE weapons only and that is all of their features at level 1. Every other martial class has the proficiencies + features to go with them. The monk is paying a lot of taxes in proficiencies and Ability Scores and isn't getting a lot in return for paying those taxes.
Unbalanced trade off, that is what many ones here are arguing, indeed. And the solution should be not so complex that WotC will ignore it. Don't expect they are going to fully rework the class, as the idea is to patch it. Then better suggest slight changes that could be applied to the current one.
3) Artificial Intelligence - people are already running basic games using chatGPT for most of the DMing, and AI is massively cheaper than humans. AI also hugely benefits from economies of scale enabling them to hold a monoply on such a service if they can be the first one to make it work.
This. This right here, is likely what's behind a lot of the steamlining of classes. Sure, they can say "forward compatibility" all they want, but at the end of the day, the Hasbro execs look at A.I. and see big dollar signs. If there is a shortage of DMs, why not just use some future iteration of ChatGPT to DM instead? Frees up the bottleneck of players who are lacking DMs. Which, by itself, would not be a terrible thing since we already have a bunch of computer game RPGs, right? Except that they are also likely to be getting rid of or massively simplifying stuff like Illusion magic, Wildshape, crafting, and all but eliminating the opportunity for players to homebrew subclass features. The species/races got more homogenous since Morkenkainens Multiverse Mess in part b/c it makes it easier to program them. The end result will be a less creative game environment that will reap short-term profits for Hasbro, since the players and DMs who want the opportunity for a more creative game will migrate to other gaming systems.
As stated previously I believe a big factor we are seeing here is a misunderstanding by WotC about the value of some of the features the monk gains vs the value of the proficiencies and other things given up by the monk.
The first is the trade of Martial weapons for the Martial Arts feature.
Breaking down the Martial arts feature this is what it does bottom to top. 1 makes your unarmed strikes deal as much damage as most other finesse martial weapons for most of the game, but this is without the benefits of a fighting style or the benefits of mastery on those attacks to boost this in any way making them weaker than a finesse martial weapon for the entire life of the game, in ADDITION to making the utility of unarmed strikes grappling and shoving both less rewarding and less effective because they are still based on strength, 2. Effectively give all simple weapons that aren't 2 handed the finesse property, which again does not beat any martial finesse weapon at a d8. and 3. Give you access to a bonus action attack with the boosted unarmed strike, this DOES do something in giving MORE attacks even though we know from everything else that these attacks WILL be weaker and lighter.
HOWEVER, the only part of martial arts that DOES make up for not having a martial weapon is immediately negated by the DP features. Each of these ALSO need your bonus action forcing the player to pick from doing decent damage or doing other monk tricks. Even if ki wasn't a factor the bonus action starvation means other classes like the rogue can always do the monk's seemingly intended "hit and run" style better, because the rogue gives up no damage for going in, hitting and than disengaging or hiding. While the monk is giving up at least 1 attack+ a resource to do so.
We can further look at additional nerfs. Deflect Missiles, while it does more damage at 2x martial arts die instead of 1x+abi, it is much LESS reliable due to it being a save and all saves being based on your wisdom. The devs stated they wanted to make this feature do more damage, but they have failed and instead made it do less overall damage. This is part of the sign of how out of touch the devs currently are with the problems of the monk.
Stunning strike is an iconic ability of the monk since its first inception, so keeping it in some capacity should be important. This isn't a bad way, but this is also the LAST offensive feature the monk gets. From this point on not a single additional ability will help the monk's offensive output. The martial arts die increasing is honestly a bad joke and always has been. It is 1 damage per HIT increase of damage meaning it averages around 2.4 points of damage increase. The rogue sees this level of increase every 2 levels not every 6.
Even the subclasses do little to help out in this regard with the only damaging feature from level 6 to 11 coming from Way of the Elements for specifically large number of foes needing at least 3 opponents or more to be an effective use of ki, and all 3 having a mobility increase at level 11 just 2 levels after monk just GOT a mobility boost. And unfortunately almost all of these mobility boosts require the use of your bonus action and potentially step of the wind. Which further highlights the bonus action starvation issue. Everything points to the idea that the monk wants to be hit and running, but there is nothing to help them hit while they run. The class that actually allows that playstyle currently is the rogue. The monk just doesn't fit and doesn't mechanically fulfil its fantasy. Not as an unarmed martial artist expert, not as a hit and run person, not a dodge tank. Even the video thumbnail for the monk announcement missed the mark showing a guy clad in armor with an Asian inspired halberd facing down a threat. That character isn't even a monk by the rules of the game, they are a fighter or a barbarian, or a paladin or even a ranger, but the monk as written couldn't live that fantasy. Someone who wants to live the fantasy of an unarmed fighting character would probably have more fun going strength based and taking the tavern brawler and grappler feats so that their unarmed strikes did more than just damage. Someone who wants a hit and run character is likely to play a rogue. One of the best ways to take advantage of all the mobility and defense of the monk is to get crossbow expert or just use a short bow and fire arrows while using the speed and mobility to stay away and use stunning strike from a distance combined with the ability to deflect arrows and evasion and the monk makes a much stronger ranged character than they do an unarmed fighter.
- Cunning Strike: DC uses Dex, while the monk abilities uses Wis. Why the requirement for 2 ability scores? Then why the Rogue don’t use Int as it should be the other, more if associated with “Cunning”.
- AC: the Rogue don’t need a +2 in another ability score like the Monk in Wis to have the same AC, so can invest ability scores aside Dex as it wishes. And it can focus increasing only Dex, while at the same time has the chance to use magical armor, not so hard to get at least a +1 one.
We could then compare features, with Rogue getting the Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Cunning Strike, Reliable Talent and Expertise for free with unlimited usages, not depending any level limited resource as DP.
At melee Rogue has 2 chances to land its damage (Sneak Attack) with Nick and use the Bonus Action to Disengage for free. The Monk has to chose between more hits or spend 1 DP and the Bonus Action to Disengage.
If we go at range, Sneak Attack vs the Monk not using its MA stuff…well better not compare, right? But I maintain my though that Sneak Attack at range is very broken, it should work only from unseen . As it can deal 2 ranged attacks with a Sling and Hand-crossbow, or 2 hand-crossbows with the corresponding feat, I see no reason the Rogue should do another thing than simply spam ranged attacks with Sneak Attack to targets adjacent to a friendly one. Then allow to add Dex modifier to it with Cunning Strike if not used or using Sneak Attack, for not combining Sneak Attack plus multiple ranged attacks plus add Dex modifier to both from unseen. Or easier halve the damage from ranged attacks if not unseen.
Then I have to ask, who is the martial one? Looking at features I’d say the Monk as Rogue gets so many things, but looking at all the previously mentioned is not so clear.
I think the simplest changes to get the most out of the monk are:
1) more ki - add wisdom modifier to starting ki pool
2) move flurry of blows to attack action around level 9-11.
3) free bonus action dash or disengage (like the rogue)
There are alot of other issues with the monk but i think these three can give the biggest results without having to change things too much. I think the designers would be more open to simple ideas then ones that are a complete re design or overly complicated.
I think the simplest changes to get the most out of the monk are:
1) more ki - add wisdom modifier to starting ki pool
I think they're specifically trying to avoid that, sort of like the way Clerics no longer get bonus spell preparation based on their Wisdom Modifier. I could be wrong about it, but it sort of feels that way. Also note that Sorcery Points are essentially the same: equal to our class level, starting at 2nd level. The difference is that Sorcerer's (in 5e) have a way to slightly increase that.
What the Monk needs, IMO, is a Feat like "Metamagic Initiate" (which adds 2 sorcery points). Make a Feat that just adds more Discipline Points. Either 2 DP and some feature that is mildly useful to the Monk but a bit more useful to a non-Monk (maybe add 1 or 2 to your Unarmed Strike damage?)... or 4 DP and no side benefit (which would make it only attractive to Monks).
The more I think about it: +2 DP, and "Spend 1 DP to add a magical +1 to attack and damage rolls for Unarmed Strikes and/or Natural Weapons for 1 minute." THAT as a Feat would be compelling to species with natural weapons (claws), and to Monks.
2) move flurry of blows to attack action
That would allow a 2nd level monk to have 4 attacks in a round PLUS their Bonus Action ... which seems excessive when compared to a Fighter's attack rate.
Personally I would rather see: a) Give up the current "Flurry of Blows" entirely, and just give the Monk "Two Extra Attacks" at some point. b) rename "Bonus Unarmed Strike" to "Flurry of Blows", as a way to keep the feature name for legacy purposes (and it sounds more flavorful than "Bonus Unarmed Strike").
The advantage is: You no longer have to pay DP/Ki for it, but at high level, they still do a total of 4 attacks per round. If you REALLY think they need it, you could also give them "Three Extra Attacks" at some point (you'd want those to match when the Fighter gets them). That would be 4 attacks for free, and a 5th at the cost of their Bonus Action. That would sort of fit the idea of more, but somewhat less effective, attacks than a Fighter (like Flurry of Blows from 3e). But ... this also makes the Monk a tiny bit less flavorful, IMO.
3) free bonus action dash or disengage (like the rogue)
I think removing the DP cost for Step of the Wind is probably a good idea.
If you combine both of those (eliminating the DP cost for more attacks, and the DP/Ki cost for step of the wind) then you've greatly reduced the need for more initial DP/Ki in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Be kind folks, this is something near and dear to many of our hearts. We all want to see dnd get to a better place, and we each have classes that we feel can still use some improvement especially with some of the changes made in the most recent release. This difficult, because no two people can agree on the best ways to fix the flaws we perceive in the current models. Be it damage, utility, defense, or flexibility.
My personal feelings are each one of those categories needs a small bump. Partially because the larger the change the less likely I feel wizards will implement it. Ki economy seems to be the main root from which most of the perceived faults originate. Many dislike having to give up damage to live, and how many things are very dependent on bonus action economy. These are fairly complicated systems to compare. Very rarely is someone going to us Flurry every turn to keep up with higher damage classes, especially when you lose out on other uses of your bonus action. Even getting a little extra ki (whether a flat bonus, or a recovery mechanic outside of a short rest) would be a bandaid. Especially with the playtest moving away from short rest dependency.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Wow... this isn't your personal soapbox, this is a forum where we have conversations. If you don't want to listen to anyone else then just write up your proposal as HB and publish it on DMsGuild and give it to all your players. Particularly since you don't seem to understand how the game works at all?? 2d6+DEX*2 >>> 1d8+STR.....
I feel this edition fixes some needs but is going backwards in many other things. The strictness to sub/class features feels like returning to that rigid 2nd edition in 2024. At the end I am going to apply more homebrew than rules, but then how can I know if I maintain the balance? It's not easy. Why a Bladesinger cannot get a Fighting Style? It is so game breaking? Meanwhile you can still make a Paladin with a dip in Warlock to make everything only with its Charisma, just requiring 13 Str.
Also we are returning to only the base Fighting Styles (the thrown weapons one was really interesting), removed many interesting feats (like Fey Touched). Was not enough simply to removing or limiting the game breaking ones? I want to think that at the end we will have the full set of revised feats and other things.
I am fully on the side of max flexibility but banning the unbalanced things from the game. So even in 5E I removed many of the feat requirements:
- Why a Fighter cannot get some spell ability? It is not free, and doesn't have to be better than any other feat, is merely another way. So removed the Metamagic Adept requirement, removed the "Sorcery Points only for metamagic" and adding to it the Font of Magic feature to be able to convert to spell slots. Well, if someone wants to specialize more in spells, why not? If a Fighter wants to get a feat like Magic Initiate, could cast more times converting SP into spell slots. Though about creating a variation providing more SP without Metamagics, but not sure how many SP (maybe 3).
- In the other hand, being able to get so easily Devil's Sight? I restricted that to Warlock, as a way to get extra Invocation paying a feat.
- Directly removed any requirement to Fighting Styles.
Then you start from your sub/class, and mold your character with feats in the way. While not breaking the game is fine for me, not sure why to impose limitations to players so they can only chose A, B or C for their X class. At the end all the characters of the same class are the same thing. As you can be so happy in the back line with your spell specialization, but when you are hit by that Lightning Bolt ending your adventure then you ask yourself why the hell didn't get the Tough feat. I think there is no clear better than other, most are merely different options, then allow them. If then we detect something game breaking, ban it.
I base on other games specially in one which we enjoyed very very much, that worked this way (with Talents and Flaws), so you could have a Ranger (half-caster) much more specialized in spells or in combat, starting from the same class. It worked so well for all the players, the party and the game itself that don't want to use a so strict and imposed method.
In the end we will have a revised full set of feats. Just not in the PHB. Otherwise, if they revised and released everything currently out there, in the 2024 PHB, what would they publish in addon books in the future? This is a revision of the PHB, DMG, MM, after all. Not a revision of the entire game. Some stuff that wasn't in the 2014 PHB is being added, like a few spells, but the vast majority of the content is revisions of only what the 2014 PHB had.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As an addendum, the playtests have abandoned the more bold changes from earlier drafts. It's clear WotC doesn't intend to completely abandon the likes of Xanathar's, Tasha's, and more. Which means those subclasses, feats, and other rules supplements aren't going anywhere. There's a chance they'll be reprinted with a not insignificant amount of errata, and I'm slightly concerned they're not looking at the entirety of those books.
I'm peeved the fourth monk subclass is now "Warrior of Mercy". They strip out a subclass feature from Way of the Astral Self (Deflect Energy) for this playtest and don't even intend to address it if it sticks?
The big question is how whatever they publish will interact with their VTT. If they only support the newer books, and if they don't allow for significant homebrew, it'll feel more stifling than freeing.
It's feeling more and more like 2024 D&D will just be 2014 D&D, but with errata to make everything worse (except Wizards, Rogues, and maybe Sorcerers).
Is that really going to justify DMs spending hundreds to buy new books?
If WotC were serious about making a D&D subscription service they'd just build a site where you can subscribe for say $15 a month, with free access to all D&D material, and also with the digital equivalent of Adventurer's League games where you can just join up with a gaming group with a WotC employed DM hosting. Find a campaign you like, bring your character, and play.
Stating something is false doesn't make it false. PROVE my statements are false. I provided plenty of proof they are true.
I did, in the parts you cut out of your quote of me.
You provided zero proof that that I was trying to rip apart a class.
You provided zero proof that my feats are inconsistent with "what 5e is about" (and I provided significant proof that they are exactly consistent with 5e based upon other 5e Feats).
You provided zero proof that Monks should have Martial Weapons as part of the base class (as opposed to them being part of the subclass that IS about Monks with further weapon training). Further it has already been well argued and no one owes you re-hashing an already thoroughly argued topic just because you don't accept their reasons.
You provided zero proof that your alternative feats are somehow better, while I provided fundamental principles why they were flawed (that they should not let non-monks outshine monks). And I am not under any obligation to debate that principle.
You provided _zero_ proof, just unsupported assertions that started with a completely false projection (ripping apart classes) and a completely bogus principle (this "is not what 5e is about").
The problem, no doubt, that they have realized is that paying DMs would make the subscription very expensive, and/or open the door to bad-DMs tarnishing their brand (imagine if those guys who made the racist version of D&D signed up to be DMs...). Basically they would have three options:
1) Independent Contractor DMs - aka Uber for D&D, people can sign up to be a DM. Some low-payed, overworked WotC staffer checks spends 10 minutes checking they aren't a horrible person to approve them. WotC supplies DMs with discounted subscriptions to VTT & books and DMs offer pay-to-play games and WotC takes a cut. This allows subscriptions to be low, but requires decent uptake to be sustainably profitable. It's also easy for competitors to emerge and offer the same service
2) Part-time employees - WotC hires DMs to do shift work offering games with full access to VTT & digital materials to support their subscription service. Subscriptions are expensive as they have to cover salaries for these DMs, and the HR resources required to hire on the appropriate number of DMs to meet demands. However, it would be hard for competitors to match this kind of service.
3) Artificial Intelligence - people are already running basic games using chatGPT for most of the DMing, and AI is massively cheaper than humans. AI also hugely benefits from economies of scale enabling them to hold a monoply on such a service if they can be the first one to make it work.
That's not a $15/mo service. Might be viable at $150/mo.
That's not a realistic expectation, IMO ($15/mo to get access to all D&D material). If anything, your baseline has to start with the existing D&DB content access/prices. There are bundles if you want "all in one", or you can buy piecemeal. Any subscription you think they should have has to realistically provide them with the same return.
I mean, you kind of get that (minus the above part about content) through other places for $5-10/mo, without the service providing you a DM. If you want the service to provide you with a DM, guess what you need to do? Pay them enough to cover them paying the DM. $15/mo for unlimited paid DM sessions is not a viable business model.
A more likely model would be to bundle access to this "online Adventure League and VTT expansion of D&DB" into the existing Player and DM subscriptions (maybe increasing them by a few dollars), and then per-game fees for those games that are run by a paid DM.
You want to play in a VTT offered by (and integrated with) D&DB, finding/bringing your own DM? That could/should be part of the base player or DM subscriptions, yeah.
You want to play in that without having to bring/find your own DM? That game is going to cost you some amount of premium so that D&DB can pay to have those DMs on staff. If you're not willing to pay that premium for a paid DM to be on the WOTC/D&DB payroll, why would they offer you a paid DM?
I have been compiling a list from various threads into the most common suggestions. Feel free to use any of these.
1)Ki as a resource pool still needs refining. It's still not enough at tier 1 play and barely enough at tier 2. Short rests vary from table to table and so a monks' power level can be wildly different. Monk power level needs to be the same from table to table so the designers can get consistent feedback.
Some ideas are:
-give the monk enough ki for a full adventuring day that resets on a long rest.
-Add wisdom modifier to starting ki pool.
-give a duration of 1 minute or longer to flurry of blows, patient defense and step of the wind
-heightened metabolism at level 2.
Until ki points are refined to an appropriate and consistent level monks are going to have problems.
2) Allow monks access to fighting style feats.
3) better scaling damage from 11th to 20th. An extra unarmed strike at 11th and 17th level as part of the attack action or flurry of blows.
4) 1d10 hit die OR change "deflect missiles" to "deflect attack" and apply its damage reduction and redirection to melee as well.
5) add weapon mastery options to unarmed strikes.
6) capstone: +4 to dex and +4 to wisdom would be great. (modeled after barbarian).
7) Add half proficiency bonus to unarmored AC.
8) the monk save dc for the new grapple and shove rules to be based on dexterity, not strength.
9) stunning strike - the creature still gets the dazed condition even if it makes its save.
10) Change the term "discipline points" back to Ki points. If that is not possible then try "vitality points" or "focus points."
11) dextrous attack - let the monk add dexterity bonus to any weapon the monk is proficient in that lacks the heavy or two handed property. Not just simple weapons only.
12) free bonus action disengage and dash
13) Just make the monk awesome and people will play it. Even if you have to make some large changes. Backwards compatibility is less important than making a great monk.
The solution to fixing monk has to be simple enough to leave it compatible with 5e monk subclasses not in the PHB. If a sub class is getting a revision it’s fine, because you are suppose to use the most current version. One thing I noticed today for Ranger is I felt that all rangers should get the new Hunters lore as part of the base class. That can’t happen because hunters lore is actually a renamed ability from the monster slayer. In 5eR you will be able to still play the old monster slayer subclass using the new 5eR base class. The same must be true of the Monk. I don’t believe Way of Mercy will be in the new 5eR PHB. The Way of Astral Self will require a revision if the 5eR base monk keeps deflect energy. I believe this is a way to test the new Base class compatibility with the Tasha’s monk and we will receive a play test for Warrior of Mind or something similar.
Johnkzin some of your suggestions are just too complex. Also your Vitality discipline was OP compared to the other 2. Con for health, def, attacks, and save DC.
I dislike the you can use weapon mastery with unarmed strikes idea that a couple people keep sound boarding. Weapon Mastery is a pretty boring system and now that everyone can use it the Fighter needs something else. I’ve made suggestion on how I would fix it in previous post, but I don’t see a reason to repeat in the same thread. If I come up with a new way to do it I’ll post again, but to keep repeating the same ideas over and over isn’t helping find something that many people would agree is a good enough fix.
I also doubt monks will ever be a single stat class for their defense. I wouldn’t mind their AC being based on Monk level, but I believe WOTC wouldn’t change it. It’s a staple of 5e now, even if it’s not necessarily a good staple.
Looking at Fighter, and Barbarian, I ask what makes a Monk a Warrior? Fighting styles don’t make you a warrior. Barbarian doesn’t have it. I would say Martial Weapons, but monks get Martial Arts as a “fair” replacement. Monks and Barbarians get a form of unarmored defense, but Barbarians still get some armor options. Monks probably should be allowed light armor proficiency and for it to work with Martial Arts and their Unarmored Movement (lightly armored movement), be given a better version of Unarmored Defense (12+Dex+Wis), or be given a better method of hit and run as part of martial arts (When you attack a creature on your turn they have disadvantage on attacks of opportunity against you until the end of this turn). I’ve always been confused by the monk hit die. Fighter gets d10, Barbarian gets d12, why is Monk d8. Was monk meant to be a glass cannon. At level 1 the 5eR 2d6+6 could mean that, but that falls off quickly. Monks should get a d10, a bigger increase in damage or Patient Defense should become no action.
This has been something I noticed. Monks have Caster proficiency and average non-martial health. So their features should be making up for that. Martial Arts ability seems to be made to make up for lack of martial weapons and Unarmed Defense makes up for the lack of armor proficiency, that + mastery with SIMPLE weapons only and that is all of their features at level 1. Every other martial class has the proficiencies + features to go with them. The monk is paying a lot of taxes in proficiencies and Ability Scores and isn't getting a lot in return for paying those taxes.
Unbalanced trade off, that is what many ones here are arguing, indeed. And the solution should be not so complex that WotC will ignore it. Don't expect they are going to fully rework the class, as the idea is to patch it. Then better suggest slight changes that could be applied to the current one.
This. This right here, is likely what's behind a lot of the steamlining of classes. Sure, they can say "forward compatibility" all they want, but at the end of the day, the Hasbro execs look at A.I. and see big dollar signs. If there is a shortage of DMs, why not just use some future iteration of ChatGPT to DM instead? Frees up the bottleneck of players who are lacking DMs. Which, by itself, would not be a terrible thing since we already have a bunch of computer game RPGs, right? Except that they are also likely to be getting rid of or massively simplifying stuff like Illusion magic, Wildshape, crafting, and all but eliminating the opportunity for players to homebrew subclass features. The species/races got more homogenous since Morkenkainens Multiverse Mess in part b/c it makes it easier to program them. The end result will be a less creative game environment that will reap short-term profits for Hasbro, since the players and DMs who want the opportunity for a more creative game will migrate to other gaming systems.
incoming rant/ analysis.
As stated previously I believe a big factor we are seeing here is a misunderstanding by WotC about the value of some of the features the monk gains vs the value of the proficiencies and other things given up by the monk.
The first is the trade of Martial weapons for the Martial Arts feature.
Breaking down the Martial arts feature this is what it does bottom to top. 1 makes your unarmed strikes deal as much damage as most other finesse martial weapons for most of the game, but this is without the benefits of a fighting style or the benefits of mastery on those attacks to boost this in any way making them weaker than a finesse martial weapon for the entire life of the game, in ADDITION to making the utility of unarmed strikes grappling and shoving both less rewarding and less effective because they are still based on strength, 2. Effectively give all simple weapons that aren't 2 handed the finesse property, which again does not beat any martial finesse weapon at a d8. and 3. Give you access to a bonus action attack with the boosted unarmed strike, this DOES do something in giving MORE attacks even though we know from everything else that these attacks WILL be weaker and lighter.
HOWEVER, the only part of martial arts that DOES make up for not having a martial weapon is immediately negated by the DP features. Each of these ALSO need your bonus action forcing the player to pick from doing decent damage or doing other monk tricks. Even if ki wasn't a factor the bonus action starvation means other classes like the rogue can always do the monk's seemingly intended "hit and run" style better, because the rogue gives up no damage for going in, hitting and than disengaging or hiding. While the monk is giving up at least 1 attack+ a resource to do so.
We can further look at additional nerfs. Deflect Missiles, while it does more damage at 2x martial arts die instead of 1x+abi, it is much LESS reliable due to it being a save and all saves being based on your wisdom. The devs stated they wanted to make this feature do more damage, but they have failed and instead made it do less overall damage. This is part of the sign of how out of touch the devs currently are with the problems of the monk.
Stunning strike is an iconic ability of the monk since its first inception, so keeping it in some capacity should be important. This isn't a bad way, but this is also the LAST offensive feature the monk gets. From this point on not a single additional ability will help the monk's offensive output. The martial arts die increasing is honestly a bad joke and always has been. It is 1 damage per HIT increase of damage meaning it averages around 2.4 points of damage increase. The rogue sees this level of increase every 2 levels not every 6.
Even the subclasses do little to help out in this regard with the only damaging feature from level 6 to 11 coming from Way of the Elements for specifically large number of foes needing at least 3 opponents or more to be an effective use of ki, and all 3 having a mobility increase at level 11 just 2 levels after monk just GOT a mobility boost. And unfortunately almost all of these mobility boosts require the use of your bonus action and potentially step of the wind. Which further highlights the bonus action starvation issue. Everything points to the idea that the monk wants to be hit and running, but there is nothing to help them hit while they run. The class that actually allows that playstyle currently is the rogue. The monk just doesn't fit and doesn't mechanically fulfil its fantasy. Not as an unarmed martial artist expert, not as a hit and run person, not a dodge tank. Even the video thumbnail for the monk announcement missed the mark showing a guy clad in armor with an Asian inspired halberd facing down a threat. That character isn't even a monk by the rules of the game, they are a fighter or a barbarian, or a paladin or even a ranger, but the monk as written couldn't live that fantasy.
Someone who wants to live the fantasy of an unarmed fighting character would probably have more fun going strength based and taking the tavern brawler and grappler feats so that their unarmed strikes did more than just damage. Someone who wants a hit and run character is likely to play a rogue. One of the best ways to take advantage of all the mobility and defense of the monk is to get crossbow expert or just use a short bow and fire arrows while using the speed and mobility to stay away and use stunning strike from a distance combined with the ability to deflect arrows and evasion and the monk makes a much stronger ranged character than they do an unarmed fighter.
Even worst when comparing against the Rogue:
- Cunning Strike: DC uses Dex, while the monk abilities uses Wis. Why the requirement for 2 ability scores? Then why the Rogue don’t use Int as it should be the other, more if associated with “Cunning”.
- AC: the Rogue don’t need a +2 in another ability score like the Monk in Wis to have the same AC, so can invest ability scores aside Dex as it wishes. And it can focus increasing only Dex, while at the same time has the chance to use magical armor, not so hard to get at least a +1 one.
We could then compare features, with Rogue getting the Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Cunning Strike, Reliable Talent and Expertise for free with unlimited usages, not depending any level limited resource as DP.
At melee Rogue has 2 chances to land its damage (Sneak Attack) with Nick and use the Bonus Action to Disengage for free. The Monk has to chose between more hits or spend 1 DP and the Bonus Action to Disengage.
If we go at range, Sneak Attack vs the Monk not using its MA stuff…well better not compare, right? But I maintain my though that Sneak Attack at range is very broken, it should work only from unseen . As it can deal 2 ranged attacks with a Sling and Hand-crossbow, or 2 hand-crossbows with the corresponding feat, I see no reason the Rogue should do another thing than simply spam ranged attacks with Sneak Attack to targets adjacent to a friendly one. Then allow to add Dex modifier to it with Cunning Strike if not used or using Sneak Attack, for not combining Sneak Attack plus multiple ranged attacks plus add Dex modifier to both from unseen. Or easier halve the damage from ranged attacks if not unseen.
Then I have to ask, who is the martial one? Looking at features I’d say the Monk as Rogue gets so many things, but looking at all the previously mentioned is not so clear.
I think the simplest changes to get the most out of the monk are:
1) more ki - add wisdom modifier to starting ki pool
2) move flurry of blows to attack action around level 9-11.
3) free bonus action dash or disengage (like the rogue)
There are alot of other issues with the monk but i think these three can give the biggest results without having to change things too much. I think the designers would be more open to simple ideas then ones that are a complete re design or overly complicated.
I think they're specifically trying to avoid that, sort of like the way Clerics no longer get bonus spell preparation based on their Wisdom Modifier. I could be wrong about it, but it sort of feels that way. Also note that Sorcery Points are essentially the same: equal to our class level, starting at 2nd level. The difference is that Sorcerer's (in 5e) have a way to slightly increase that.
What the Monk needs, IMO, is a Feat like "Metamagic Initiate" (which adds 2 sorcery points). Make a Feat that just adds more Discipline Points. Either 2 DP and some feature that is mildly useful to the Monk but a bit more useful to a non-Monk (maybe add 1 or 2 to your Unarmed Strike damage?)... or 4 DP and no side benefit (which would make it only attractive to Monks).
The more I think about it: +2 DP, and "Spend 1 DP to add a magical +1 to attack and damage rolls for Unarmed Strikes and/or Natural Weapons for 1 minute." THAT as a Feat would be compelling to species with natural weapons (claws), and to Monks.
That would allow a 2nd level monk to have 4 attacks in a round PLUS their Bonus Action ... which seems excessive when compared to a Fighter's attack rate.
Personally I would rather see:
a) Give up the current "Flurry of Blows" entirely, and just give the Monk "Two Extra Attacks" at some point.
b) rename "Bonus Unarmed Strike" to "Flurry of Blows", as a way to keep the feature name for legacy purposes (and it sounds more flavorful than "Bonus Unarmed Strike").
The advantage is: You no longer have to pay DP/Ki for it, but at high level, they still do a total of 4 attacks per round. If you REALLY think they need it, you could also give them "Three Extra Attacks" at some point (you'd want those to match when the Fighter gets them). That would be 4 attacks for free, and a 5th at the cost of their Bonus Action. That would sort of fit the idea of more, but somewhat less effective, attacks than a Fighter (like Flurry of Blows from 3e). But ... this also makes the Monk a tiny bit less flavorful, IMO.
I think removing the DP cost for Step of the Wind is probably a good idea.
If you combine both of those (eliminating the DP cost for more attacks, and the DP/Ki cost for step of the wind) then you've greatly reduced the need for more initial DP/Ki in the first place.